Can someone say "you can't use that it's mine I own the original"? Well, they can say it, but it won't be true.
I can't predict the future, but I'm predicting that there will never be retroactive* legal enforcement of NFTs as proof of copyright. As I said above, copyright and NFT ownership are mutually exclusive. NFTs could be used to help prove copyright with the right legislation, but they aren't currently being used that way. They're being used to fake copyright ownership right now. Bleh!
*the legal system may, at some point, support NFTs as a way to reinforce copyright going forward, but it won't validate NFTs that were created before such a law went into effect. If they did, this would work: "I just NFT'd the concept of NFTs, Therefore I hereby own every ownership claim staked by all NFTs everywhere. Fight me."
Here is my understanding, which is incomplete and probably incorrect in some ways:
NFTs seek to create the difference between unique originals and reproductions in digital art. In physical artwork, there is much greater value attributed to the original than on any reproductions. The Mona Lisa, for instance. You can purchase a print of it in many gift shops for a couple euros, but the original "real" Mona Lisa is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Even though the copy is visually identical, it is only worth what they charge for it in the gift shop.
NFTs (sort of) do this, but for digital art. Copies of digital art aren't just visually identical, they're actually identical in every way. There is no way to tell the difference between the "original" file and a copy of it. There is provenance in who had the file first, sure, but there can be no real difference in value if two files are indistinguishable from one another. NFTs encode a file so you can tell it hasn't been changed nor another copy of the file has been encoded before, so you can designate the NFT token as "proof of original". Nothing really stops someone from using or viewing other copies of the art. The token *says* a specific person owns the "original", but who enforces that? There are (currently) no laws that enforce copyright or ownership of NFTs over any other copy of the art.
From that point, it's a bit like PeterX's analogy of charging people for tickets to a concert. The band may actually be playing the gig for free. There's just some dude nearby saying you have to buy a ticket to see the concert. There isn't even any walls for the venue; the concert is being played in a public park; there aren't fences or anything preventing anyone from just walking in and celebrating. "Some dude" might yell and threaten to call the cops on people who aren't buying tickets, but there's not actually any authority other than the people who believe the tickets are legit.
"Some dude" may argue that, without the ticket stub, you have no proof that you attended the concert. You have no souvenir with which to remember the experience. He's right about that, but sentimental value is the only value it really has.
If you want to own a peice of digital art for it's sentimental value to you, and for the presteige of owning a unique peiece of art that no one else can say they own, NFTs have value. I enjoy the visual aspects of prints just as much as the visual aspects of original works, but I also like owning paintings for their uniqueness and singular rarity. Also, it shows appreciation to the artists. In treating digital art like collectable physical art, NFTs are useful and cool.
There is also a good use for them as collectable items in games. In Magic The Gathering (MTG) collectible card game, the cards themselves are physical. A large portion of each card's value is determined by it's rarity. If everyone had a Black Lotus card, each one wouldn't be worth much. Wizards of the Coast (WotC), the company that makes MTG, ensures that rarity by simply not producing or circulating very many of them (They produced a few back in the day and no longer produce them at all, thus the scarcity). There are a lot of attempted fakes, but experts are able to spot subtle differences between fake and real cards. No such differences exist in digital files, so MTG had trouble guaranteeing the value of player purchased cards in their digital version of the game. Is this card really worth this price? If I buy it, what stops the company from just "printing" more digital copies within the game and selling it to other players? What stops other players from duplicating thousands of digital Black Lotus cards and selling them to other players?
NFTs to the rescue. I'm not sure WotC actually made all their digital cards into specifically Non Fungible Tokens, but if not, they were discussing something very similar to ensure cards were unique and not duplicable. Each digital card is owned by a specific player, so duplicating any and trying to sell the duplicates would reveal themselves as fakes rather quickly. The ledger for who-owns-what with NFTs is public, so WotC couldn't just "cook the books" and add a few lines claiming "uh, yeah- we've actually had 300 Black Lotuses in circulation this whole time!" Everyone would see it and call foul.
Any similarly collectable items in digital games would benefit from NFT technology to ensure the value and authenticity of digital items, giving them real-world value as if they were real-world objects.
I have no idea why some dudes are NFT-ifying random bits of digital art with no context for their application. That boggles my brain. It is annoying that some dudes are claiming "ownership" over artwork they didn't even create or pay for, but honestly that's all it is as far as I'm concerned; Annoying. That's all those people are; just some dudes. There is no legal enforcement or actual copyright involved. Digital art can be copyrighted of course, but ownership of copyright and "ownership" of NFTs are mutually exclusive.
@Shokio: Different game engines require different arrangments for graphics. A Spritesheet is the norm, actually. A game engine needing individual frames of animations is atypical... Fortunately, splitting spritesheets into individual frames is fairly easy. Try these steps:
click "Create Sprite" (yellow button in upper-right of page)
click the Import button (white folder icon along right side of page)
under the "Import from picture" heading, click the yellow "browse images" button
select the spritesheet file you downloaded in step 1
click the "Import as spritesheet" radio button and enter the following values. Frame size:32 x 32. Offset:0 x 0
Click "Import" button. It will warn you about 'replace your current animation', but you don't have a current animation, so who cares? Click "OK"
In the upper right, you should see it processing the animations. After a few seconds it should be giving you a good preview of all the animation frames. Yay!
To save them as individual frames, click the "EXPORT" button (The white mountain+moon icon on the right side)
On the Export dialog, select the "Zip" tab: [ GIF | PNG | Zip | Others ]
Leave other options alone, and click "Download ZIP" button.
The zip file will contain all the frames as individual png files! :)
If you're getting the 3D art from here, then yes. you can modify it however you want so long as you're meeting the requirements of the author. Such requirements are nothing more complicated than listing the proper informaiton on your credits screen and in your credits file. See this FAQ entry for the recommended way to give attribution: https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit
Neat!
Question on the ships: Any plans for gun ports or deck hatches?
@LMCuber: see FAQ https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit
Can someone say "you can't use that it's mine I own the original"? Well, they can say it, but it won't be true.
I can't predict the future, but I'm predicting that there will never be retroactive* legal enforcement of NFTs as proof of copyright. As I said above, copyright and NFT ownership are mutually exclusive. NFTs could be used to help prove copyright with the right legislation, but they aren't currently being used that way. They're being used to fake copyright ownership right now. Bleh!
*the legal system may, at some point, support NFTs as a way to reinforce copyright going forward, but it won't validate NFTs that were created before such a law went into effect. If they did, this would work: "I just NFT'd the concept of NFTs, Therefore I hereby own every ownership claim staked by all NFTs everywhere. Fight me."
Here is my understanding, which is incomplete and probably incorrect in some ways:
NFTs seek to create the difference between unique originals and reproductions in digital art. In physical artwork, there is much greater value attributed to the original than on any reproductions. The Mona Lisa, for instance. You can purchase a print of it in many gift shops for a couple euros, but the original "real" Mona Lisa is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Even though the copy is visually identical, it is only worth what they charge for it in the gift shop.
NFTs (sort of) do this, but for digital art. Copies of digital art aren't just visually identical, they're actually identical in every way. There is no way to tell the difference between the "original" file and a copy of it. There is provenance in who had the file first, sure, but there can be no real difference in value if two files are indistinguishable from one another. NFTs encode a file so you can tell it hasn't been changed nor another copy of the file has been encoded before, so you can designate the NFT token as "proof of original". Nothing really stops someone from using or viewing other copies of the art. The token *says* a specific person owns the "original", but who enforces that? There are (currently) no laws that enforce copyright or ownership of NFTs over any other copy of the art.
From that point, it's a bit like PeterX's analogy of charging people for tickets to a concert. The band may actually be playing the gig for free. There's just some dude nearby saying you have to buy a ticket to see the concert. There isn't even any walls for the venue; the concert is being played in a public park; there aren't fences or anything preventing anyone from just walking in and celebrating. "Some dude" might yell and threaten to call the cops on people who aren't buying tickets, but there's not actually any authority other than the people who believe the tickets are legit.
"Some dude" may argue that, without the ticket stub, you have no proof that you attended the concert. You have no souvenir with which to remember the experience. He's right about that, but sentimental value is the only value it really has.
If you want to own a peice of digital art for it's sentimental value to you, and for the presteige of owning a unique peiece of art that no one else can say they own, NFTs have value. I enjoy the visual aspects of prints just as much as the visual aspects of original works, but I also like owning paintings for their uniqueness and singular rarity. Also, it shows appreciation to the artists. In treating digital art like collectable physical art, NFTs are useful and cool.
There is also a good use for them as collectable items in games. In Magic The Gathering (MTG) collectible card game, the cards themselves are physical. A large portion of each card's value is determined by it's rarity. If everyone had a Black Lotus card, each one wouldn't be worth much. Wizards of the Coast (WotC), the company that makes MTG, ensures that rarity by simply not producing or circulating very many of them (They produced a few back in the day and no longer produce them at all, thus the scarcity). There are a lot of attempted fakes, but experts are able to spot subtle differences between fake and real cards. No such differences exist in digital files, so MTG had trouble guaranteeing the value of player purchased cards in their digital version of the game. Is this card really worth this price? If I buy it, what stops the company from just "printing" more digital copies within the game and selling it to other players? What stops other players from duplicating thousands of digital Black Lotus cards and selling them to other players?
NFTs to the rescue. I'm not sure WotC actually made all their digital cards into specifically Non Fungible Tokens, but if not, they were discussing something very similar to ensure cards were unique and not duplicable. Each digital card is owned by a specific player, so duplicating any and trying to sell the duplicates would reveal themselves as fakes rather quickly. The ledger for who-owns-what with NFTs is public, so WotC couldn't just "cook the books" and add a few lines claiming "uh, yeah- we've actually had 300 Black Lotuses in circulation this whole time!" Everyone would see it and call foul.
Any similarly collectable items in digital games would benefit from NFT technology to ensure the value and authenticity of digital items, giving them real-world value as if they were real-world objects.
I have no idea why some dudes are NFT-ifying random bits of digital art with no context for their application. That boggles my brain. It is annoying that some dudes are claiming "ownership" over artwork they didn't even create or pay for, but honestly that's all it is as far as I'm concerned; Annoying. That's all those people are; just some dudes. There is no legal enforcement or actual copyright involved. Digital art can be copyrighted of course, but ownership of copyright and "ownership" of NFTs are mutually exclusive.
Calciumtrice's work always reminded me of the king's quest games: https://opengameart.org/users/calciumtrice
Or https://ezgif.com/sprite-cutter/ might be a bit simpler. Sorry, I should have suggested that first.
@Shokio: Different game engines require different arrangments for graphics. A Spritesheet is the norm, actually. A game engine needing individual frames of animations is atypical... Fortunately, splitting spritesheets into individual frames is fairly easy. Try these steps:
The zip file will contain all the frames as individual png files! :)
Geez, WithinAmnesia! Check your monitor privilege! We don't all have screens the size of Texas for viewing your screenshots. :P Hahaha!
Seriously, though, nice work! This is a BA feature.
If you're getting the 3D art from here, then yes. you can modify it however you want so long as you're meeting the requirements of the author. Such requirements are nothing more complicated than listing the proper informaiton on your credits screen and in your credits file. See this FAQ entry for the recommended way to give attribution: https://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-how-to-credit
Woot! I wonder if I should follow this (renamed?) account to see if anything new pops up.
(@OshDubh: It isn't really a dead thread if there is new relevant information. Thanks for the update! :)
Pages